ANITA AGGARWAL Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent-Raj Kumar has filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act seeking ejectment of respondent Rajinder Kumar (now represented by his legal representatives-petitioners). Notice of the petition was issued to Rajinder Kumar. After filing of the written statement by Rajinder Kumar, issues were framed by the Rent Controller. Raj Kumar concluded his evidence and thereafter the case was fixed for respondent evidence. At that stage, an application was filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') seeking amendment of the written statement. Vide the impugned order, the said application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the facts, now sought to be pleaded by the petitioners, were not in the knowledge of the petitioners at the time of filing of the written statement. The said facts came to the knowledge of the petitioners after the cross-examination of the landlord was conducted. Hence, the amendment now sought to be incorporated in the written statement was liable to be allowed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance in the case of Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar, 2009 3 RCR(Civ) 899, wherein it was held as under :-

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.